Dave-G Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 All the traveller had to do was show his essential work details - leads me to suspect he didn't have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 14 hours ago, mudpatten said: Ah Well, you must have been looking at a different film. I think you`d need to know what the coppers powers actually are before you can understand how much he`s abusing the law. How do you you think he is abusing his powers? Do BTP have powers to check tickets? I am guessing they do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 15 hours ago, mudpatten said: Ah Well, you must have been looking at a different film. I think you`d need to know what the coppers powers actually are before you can understand how much he`s abusing the law. I haven't watched the clip, however I do know that the railway by-laws are very far reaching and totally different to normal acts of parliament, so he probably is acting well within his powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 Sadly, the preceeding comments illustrate how little most of us know about the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 23, 2020 Report Share Posted May 23, 2020 53 minutes ago, mudpatten said: Sadly, the preceeding comments illustrate how little most of us know about the law. So come on then tell us how he is abusing his powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 (edited) I wish I had time to elaborate but, watch the first 20 seconds, it goes downhill after that. The copper has no legal right to demand the name and address of, or to demand to see I.D. of a person under the Covid regs. He can require the details of someone who has committed an offence but the only way he can determine that is by questioning, and the person so questioned has every right not to answer. Remember the bit about "You do not have to say anything....." The bloke "Patrick" is Polish and knows his rights. So you might being from a country so often violated by its neighbours and then subject to the Soviet jackboot for decades. Odd that a Pole should be keen to uphold the civil freedoms that many of us seem keen to fritter away through ignorance. It`s very poorly drafted law but it really doesn`t help that the officer believes he has a power which he does not in fact have. It`s unchallenged "mission creep" by the police that will see us lose the right to own guns in the UK. I take it that those of you who can see no problem in this clip are completely happy with the way in which police now demand medical certification with the grant or renewal of firearms certificates. Edited May 24, 2020 by mudpatten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, mudpatten said: I wish I had time to elaborate but, watch the first 20 seconds, it goes downhill after that. The copper has no legal right to demand the name and address of a person under the Covid regs. He can require the details of someone who has committed an offence but the only way he can determine that is by questioning, and the person so questioned has every right not to answer. Remember the bit about "You do not have to say anything....." It`s very poorly drafted law but it really doesn`t help that the officer believes he has a power which he does not in fact have. It`s unchallenged "mission creep" by the police that will see us lose the right to own guns in the UK. I take it that those of you who can see no problem in this clip are completely happy with the way in which police now demand medical certification with the grant or renewal of firearms certificates. Fair point but that soon passes over and the majority of the video is the officer asking to see his ticket and the man refusing to show it. Is the BTP officer entitled, within his powers, to ask to see his ticket and, if the person is unwilling to show it, stop him from travelling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 Patrick does offer to show his ticket to station staff rightly finding it difficult to deal with an officer whose agressive demands centre around non existant "Covid powers". The officer himself only mentions the fact that he`s ejecting the bloke from the station and not allowing him to travel for failing to have provided his details under the covid regs. Something the copper cannot demand and the bloke has no requirement to provide. As is often the case when gathering evidence, one needs to look at what DID happen, not what you thought happened. I know it gets a bit confusing but the one thing the copper was on solid ground with - the ticket - is not the thing he bases his subsequent behaviour around. The copper also makes the comment that he`s asked numerous other people for their details earlier that day. He had no power to do that either under the covid regs. And if he meant to address the issue using his BTP powers on the railway he should have clearly stated that and not persisted with the incorrect "covid mantra". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 29 minutes ago, mudpatten said: Patrick does offer to show his ticket to station staff rightly finding it difficult to deal with an officer whose agressive demands centre around non existant "Covid powers". The officer himself only mentions the fact that he`s ejecting the bloke from the station and not allowing him to travel for failing to have provided his details under the covid regs. Something the copper cannot demand and the bloke has no requirement to provide. As is often the case when gathering evidence, one needs to look at what DID happen, not what you thought happened. I know it gets a bit confusing but the one thing the copper was on solid ground with - the ticket - is not the thing he bases his subsequent behaviour around. The copper also makes the comment that he`s asked numerous other people for their details earlier that day. He had no power to do that either under the covid regs. And if he meant to address the issue using his BTP powers on the railway he should have clearly stated that and not persisted with the incorrect "covid mantra". Ok so he couldn’t stop him for travelling for not giving details but could stop him from travelling for not being willing to show his ticket? Net result is the same - he doesn’t travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 47 minutes ago, mudpatten said: Patrick does offer to show his ticket to station staff rightly finding it difficult to deal with an officer whose agressive demands centre around non existant "Covid powers". The officer himself only mentions the fact that he`s ejecting the bloke from the station and not allowing him to travel for failing to have provided his details under the covid regs. Something the copper cannot demand and the bloke has no requirement to provide. As is often the case when gathering evidence, one needs to look at what DID happen, not what you thought happened. I know it gets a bit confusing but the one thing the copper was on solid ground with - the ticket - is not the thing he bases his subsequent behaviour around. The copper also makes the comment that he`s asked numerous other people for their details earlier that day. He had no power to do that either under the covid regs. And if he meant to address the issue using his BTP powers on the railway he should have clearly stated that and not persisted with the incorrect "covid mantra". I still haven't watched the clip, but from what you've said the copper in fact had every right to ask the person's details. 1.on account of the ticket, an 2. if he believed an offence was being committed, he can ask for the person's name, d.o.b, place of birth and address, failure to give those details and if it met the necessity test, he would actually carry the power of arrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 49 minutes ago, mudpatten said: Patrick does offer to show his ticket to station staff rightly finding it difficult to deal with an officer whose agressive demands centre around non existant "Covid powers". The officer himself only mentions the fact that he`s ejecting the bloke from the station and not allowing him to travel for failing to have provided his details under the covid regs. Something the copper cannot demand and the bloke has no requirement to provide. As is often the case when gathering evidence, one needs to look at what DID happen, not what you thought happened. I know it gets a bit confusing but the one thing the copper was on solid ground with - the ticket - is not the thing he bases his subsequent behaviour around. The copper also makes the comment that he`s asked numerous other people for their details earlier that day. He had no power to do that either under the covid regs. And if he meant to address the issue using his BTP powers on the railway he should have clearly stated that and not persisted with the incorrect "covid mantra". Without going into the whole video (I've not watched it all) the police are allowed to make conversation with you. They dont need a power to say hello, what's your name and address. You can of course refuse (unless sec 50 of the police reform act applies, or sections of the terrorist act). Police dont need to state the power they were using in most (99.9%) of circumstances. They can be wrong about the power they are using but still have the power to do things under different legislation. The chap refused to show his ticket. This is an offence that btp love. It gives them lots of power. They can then demand a name and address.he didn't show it and didn't give the name or address. So a summons can't be issued and Identity cannot be checked. Various other powers come into play here. The chap could have been arrested. The chap didn't have the power to decide who he shows his ticket to as the law is not a democracy. It's written down and it will upset some people. The btp officer can decide if you use the railway station or not. Hes not a home office cop and has that privilege just like a nhs hospital can refuse to treat you. Yes his behaviour was not great, there may be a reason for that or not. But to state he was making it up as he went along is simply not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mudpatten said: The copper has no legal right to demand the name and address of, or to demand to see I.D. of a person under the Covid regs. He can require the details of someone who has committed an offence but the only way he can determine that is by questioning, and the person so questioned has every right not to answer. Remember the bit about "You do not have to say anything....." 100 % correct The NPCC gave specific guidance and they instructed all Chief Constables that their officers were specifically instructed unless there was intelligence they were not to stop members of the public and make them account for their journey and not to request ID or any other form of paperwork. So to make it simple the Police wee instructed to ignore people going about their daily business unless it was obvious they were not following the guidelines. If a breech was apparent then they should instruct the person to go home and only issue the penalty if the member of the public refused to comply. When the person refused to comply only at that point did they have the right to ask for verbal details of their identity. Edited May 24, 2020 by sportsbob Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 On 23/05/2020 at 19:31, mudpatten said: Sadly, the preceeding comments illustrate how little most of us know about the law. I did a bit of googling to prove my point and I found this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/coronavirus-fine-police-lockdown-travel-newcastle-marie-dinou-a9444186.html Which also shows how clueless you are. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the Corona virus powers, the point is, they are law. Telling people misinformation and that they don't need to give details when asked is dangerous and could land them in alot of trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, GingerCat said: Yes his behaviour was not great, there may be a reason for that or not. But to state he was making it up as he went along is simply not true. It is true he was making it up as he went along he simply told fairy tales based either on his own interpretation of the law or he was following wrongful guidance as I have previously posted / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 1 minute ago, sportsbob said: It is true he was making it up as he went along he simply told fairy tales based either on his own interpretation of the law or he was following wrongful guidance as I have previously posted / Read the link I've posted, it would appear the courts think differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, sportsbob said: It is true he was making it up as he went along he simply told fairy tales based either on his own interpretation of the law or he was following wrongful guidance as I have previously posted / Don't confuse guidence with law. As I said he can be wrong about what bit of legislation he is using but that doesn't make his actions wrong or unlawful. Just a bit of an idiot for saying he was using a power that he wasn't. The fact he asked a name and address is irrelevant, he went on to ask for a ticket that wasn't given, compounded by the males refusal to provide a name and address, he's then on home turf and exercised the law as allowed. Edited May 24, 2020 by GingerCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: Read the link I've posted, it would appear the courts think differently. The link you gave states the conviction was quashed and they admit she should never have been arrested in the first place. The first thing a person should do is establish why the police are asking questions, if the question is where is your ticket then the reason is valid however if the reason is they suspect you are in breach of the Coronavirus act or similar wording that the arrest was unlawful because there is no intelligence to say the person is a danger to the wider public by making their journey and their ID and any other paperwork should not have been requested leaving the person to go unhindered about their business 3 minutes ago, GingerCat said: Don't confuse guidence with law. As I said he can be wrong about what bit of legislation he is using but that doesn't make his actions wrong or unlawful. Just a bit of an idiot for saying he was using a power that he wasn't. The fact he asked a name and address is irrelevant, he went on to ask for a ticket that wasn't given, compounded by the males refusal to provide a name and address, he's then on home turf and exercised the law as allowed. I am not going to watch it again but as I recall when challenged by the traveller as to why he was being questioned the answer was something like under the coronavirus act which was completely wrong. I have read the act and as much of the provided guidance as I could find and the BTP officer was clutching at straws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 Or they charged her with the wrong legislation, the penalty of which was less than what she served in the cells. Making any public interest in prosecuting the matter zero. The conviction under the Corona virus leglislation rightly quashed. If charged under the relevant railway act she would have had a small fine. 4 minutes ago, sportsbob said: I am not going to watch it again but as I recall when challenged by the traveller as to why he was being questioned the answer was something like under the coronavirus act which was completely wrong. I have read the act and as much of the provided guidance as I could find and the BTP officer was clutching at straws. Don't blame you. I'm not going to watch it again either. Frankly its boring. He did indeed say something like that. He didn't have a power to demand the answer. The male didn't give him the answer and that's fine. He is allowed to ask the question or otherwise the legislation cannot be enforced. He then went on to ask for a ticket that wasn't produced. he should have stuck to the "tickets please" bylaws they so love and come to the same outcome without floundering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, GingerCat said: Or they charged her with the wrong legislation, the penalty of which was less than what she served in the cells. Making any public interest in prosecuting the matter zero. The conviction under the Corona virus leglislation rightly quashed. If charged under the relevant railway act she would have had a small fine. Don't blame you. I'm not going to watch it again either. Frankly its boring. He did indeed say something like that. He didn't have a power to demand the answer. The male didn't give him the answer and that's fine. He is allowed to ask the question or otherwise the legislation cannot be enforced. He then went on to ask for a ticket that wasn't produced. he should have stuck to the "tickets please" bylaws they so love and come to the same outcome without floundering. Exactly the BTP was making it up as he went along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, sportsbob said: Exactly the BTP was making it up as he went along. Not quite. He was allowed to do what he did. Edited May 24, 2020 by GingerCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 1 minute ago, GingerCat said: Not quite. He was allowed to do what he did. He was wrong to demand anything under the corona virus act, this thread is about the police powers under the corona virus act so when he was put straight he behaved like a 7 year old in the playground saying "anyway". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, sportsbob said: He was wrong to demand anything under the corona virus act, this thread is about the police powers under the corona virus act so when he was put straight he behaved like a 7 year old in the playground saying "anyway". Laws don't exist on isolation. He may have been wrong to state the Corona virus act but that doesn't mean he was wrong in asking his details or for a ticket. If you were stopped and spoken to on suspicion theft, arrested for for blackmail and then later charged with robbery that doesn't make it unlawful, it simply means theres a better more fitting bit of leglislation to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, GingerCat said: Laws don't exist on isolation. He may have been wrong to state the Corona virus act but that doesn't mean he was wrong in asking his details or for a ticket. If you were stopped and spoken to on suspicion theft, arrested for for blackmail and then later charged with robbery that doesn't make it unlawful, it simply means theres a better more fitting bit of leglislation to use. I am not disagreeing with you in the slightest if you ask a question and don`t get the answer you want then you ask another question and so on , that in simple terms IS making it up as you go along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 Just now, sportsbob said: I am not disagreeing with you in the slightest if you ask a question and don`t get the answer you want then you ask another question and so on , that in simple terms IS making it up as you go along. I can't remember the original question now but do know I'm bored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted May 24, 2020 Report Share Posted May 24, 2020 (edited) The original question is pasted bellow. And I firmly believe the correct answer is they have no power under the coronavirus act to stop you and make you account for your journey or ask for ID or other paperwork. Quote from OP What is the legality of these so called random stops. With Police officers stopping whoever takes their fancy and asking them what they’re doing and where they’re going? I get we need to support the Government with Covid etc but to me that prospect stinks. Like living in a Police state. I also worry that these practices start now and the Police et al get used to it and it carries on when this is all over. Very dodgy ground imo. Edited May 24, 2020 by sportsbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.